Patenting Genes  Some Perspectives

In
1995, the Human Genome Organization (HUGO) issued a statement
opposing the patenting of cDNAs because it would impede the free
flow of scientific information. HUGO is worried that the
patenting of partial and uncharacterized cDNA sequences will reward
those who make routine discoveries, but penalize those who determine
biological function or application. Such an outcome would impede
the development of diagnostics and therapeutics, which is clearly
not in the public interest. HUGO is also dedicated to the early
release of genome information, thus accelerating widespread investigation
of functional aspects of genes.Patenting of life forms became a religious issue on May 18, 1995,
at a Washington Press Conference, called the Joint Appeal
Against Human and Animal Patenting, in which it was announced
that religious leaders representing more than 80 different groups
had signed a statement opposing patenting. This event marks a
point of public meeting between the religious and scientific communities,
a meeting that, quite unfortunately, has the appearance of a battle.
Numerous Roman Catholic bishops, along with Jewish, Protestant,
Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist leaders, signed the following statement:

We,
the undersigned religious leaders, oppose the patenting of human
and animal life forms. We are disturbed by the U.S. Patent Offices
recent decision to patent human body parts and several genetically
engineered animals. We believe that humans and animals are creations
of God, not humans, and as such should not be patented as human
inventions.

According
to Jeremy Rifkin, whose Foundation on Economic Trends orchestrated
the event, By turning life into patented inventions, the
government drains life of its intrinsic nature and sacred value.
Richard Land, Executive Director of the Christian Life Commission
of the Southern Baptist Convention, was quoted as saying in papers
across the country, Marketing human life is a form of genetic
slavery. Instead of whole persons being marched in shackles to
the market block, human cellines and gene sequences are labeled,
patented and sold to the highest bidders. Land added a judgment
against playing God in the laboratory: We see altering life
forms, creating new life forms, as a revolt against the sovereignty
of God and an attempt to be God.

The
theology of the May 18 press conference reflects the point of
view of Jeremy Rifkin, famed for his outspoken resistance to progress
in biological research and medical technology. In his book, Algeny,
Rifkin describes his own mission as a resacralization of
nature.The Rifkin position implies that nature prior to human creative
intervention is sacred and should be left alone. This position,
however, could prevent the pursuit of medical research and development
of therapies that could relieve human suffering and improve the
health of the human race.

Maybe
we should be asking how patents can help or retard the development
of genetically based therapy for cancer, heart disease, Cystic
Fibrosis, Alzheimers, Huntingtons disease, Williams
syndrome, and countless others. In effect, the religious leaders
have unnecessarily cut themselves off from making a contribution
to this central concern.